Though I'm a proud Luddite, I was aware of all this. I just see more and more examples of our privacy being eroded. To suggest 'because we've already lost a lot of privacy, a little bit more loss isn't so bad' seems the wrong sentiment. The old 'frog being slowly boiled' story comes to mind.

See also my tag line, but as always, YMMV.

I always look at the pros and the cons. I see more and more bad guys being caught, and innocent people protected, by the use of these tracking systems, surveillance cameras and such.

I guess I don't see any of it as an 'invasion of my privacy' unless it is actually harming me in some way, and I don't see that. Some people seem to get upset about these things, I say 'bring 'em on' - I feel safer with them. That's more important to me and my family than some perceived invasion of privacy that doesn't seem to have any negative (that I am aware of). If some computer somewhere knows that I went to Trader Joe's yesterday to by pizza fixin's, so be it.

As far as misusing tools, sure. But if Big Brother is motivated to misuse them, the laws and technology won't have much effect. Resistance organizers were 'disappeared' in the 1950's in Communist controlled countries, and they didn't need any stinkin' technology.

There are some views that modern tech is helping to keep an eye on Big Brother, more so than the other way around. Hard to say, but I think it's very possible/probable.

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

I am sorry but of all the things the government should be doing creating a public wi fi system is damn near at the bottom of my list. Not because it wouldn't be a good thing, but because the government track record in developing technology standards and deploy them is so awful that anyone even seriously letting the government design and build such a thing is crazy.

At the end of last century there we approximately zero public wi fi networks. Nowday practically every shopping mall, Starbucks, restaurant, school, airport, has a wi fi network that you can log into for free or a nominal charge. Most cities have providers which let you get mobile wi fi anywhere. Plus most 4G phones allow you to set up a wi fi hotspot.

Developing industry technology standards is hard enough with tech giants, and small company. If you add the government to the mix you roughly triple the time it takes to something, and you run the very real risk of standard setting process being so slow, that technology makes the standard obsolete.

I know plenty of you are old enough techies to remember the official DOD and Government computer language ADA. For those of you unfamiliar with ADA. The government designed a computer language ADA starting in the 1970s that was going be the next great computer language. All DOD computer program would have to be written in ADA, and possibly all government computer programs also. 25 years later they more or less the pulled the plug. In the meantime billion of dollars and countless man years were wasted. I only had limited involvement in ADA, but still I wasted weeks of my life learning about, and planning for ADA, and pursued software vendors to support it.

+2 and it isn't free....we do end up paying for it one way or another. Plus, the speeds or access are not the best - when I was in Barcelona for the Mobile World Congress, most attendees had issues getting a mobile phone or wi-fi signal...the customer density in a small area overloaded the capacity of the infrastructure throughput....these people were paying and there were issues - with free you usually end up with many people clogging a limited infrastructure.

__________________

__________________
Deserat aka Bridget
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” - George Orwell/Winston Churchill

I guess I don't see any of it as an 'invasion of my privacy' unless it is actually harming me in some way, and I don't see that. Some people seem to get upset about these things, I say 'bring 'em on' - I feel safer with them. That's more important to me and my family than some perceived invasion of privacy that doesn't seem to have any negative (that I am aware of). If some computer somewhere knows that I went to Trader Joe's yesterday to by pizza fixin's, so be it.

So yes, YMMV applies - just my POV.

-ERD50

I appreciate your point of view and actually agree with you that good things have been accomplished by more stringent vigilance. It's also true that if police/gummints had free access to our houses, cars, phones, computers, bedrooms, etc. etc. (no warrants) they would catch even MORE bad folks. 200+ years ago, the founders made a choice. They were aware of the advantages of free access to citizens private affairs. They were also painfully aware of what happened when this access was abused (overused, used as a punishment, used for intimidation, etc, etc. etc.) The founders attempted to put limitations on such activities - KNOWING that there was a cost in "safety". Now, it seems, we are attempting to do away with the protections provided to us by the founders (who actually LIVED under a system with very limited freedoms.) If at some point we wake up and realize "this time they've gone to far", it will be too late. Remember what it cost to stop the abuse 200+ years ago.

Saying (in effect) "well, I don't do anything illegal, so why should I care?" is a very slippery slope. One thing I will almost assure you (not you, specifically, ERD50 - just in general), most of us have broken laws that we are not even aware of. Most of us have broken laws we were aware of, but chose to ignore. 99% of the time, even the police don't care. 99% of the time, no one would go to trial with such a trivial offence. BUT, if someone chose to, we would be liable for our "crimes". While we feel "good" about our morality, citizenship, etc., if a gummint wished to coerce us in some fashion, they could find a broken law in our past (or, as is happening now, write new laws to create more "crimes" for us to commit - think EPA regs - fill in a wet spot in your back yard and you may have committed a felony. Forget and take nail clippers through TSA screening, they probably will just take them away from you. But make no mistake you HAVE committed a crime. You COULD be prosecuted. etc., etc.).

I'm not talking about some vast conspiracy here. I'm saying only that gummint is just like a tiger. We put them in cages, not because they are intrinsically evil, but because we know their nature. A tiger will tear you apart absent control. If you wanted to be "safe" from outsiders, you could build your house with a big fence and let the tiger loose in the yard. No one will come in to molest you. Unfortunately, you can no longer leave your house or the tiger will eat you.

Gummints seek more authority, power, control, etc., not because they are "evil", but because it makes their job easier and more effective. At some point we are all "safe" from bad people, but not safe from the gummint (tiger) who reverts to its nature.

Not intended as a rant, but it's starting to sound like one, so I'll stop since YMMV.

__________________
Ko'olau's Law -

Anything which can be used can be misused. Anything which can be misused will be.

I appreciate your point of view and actually agree with you that good things have been accomplished by more stringent vigilance. It's also true that if police/gummints had free access to our houses, cars, phones, computers, bedrooms, etc. etc. (no warrants) they would catch even MORE bad folks. 200+ years ago, the founders made a choice. They were aware of the advantages of free access to citizens private affairs. They were also painfully aware of what happened when this access was abused (overused, used as a punishment, used for intimidation, etc, etc. etc.) The founders attempted to put limitations on such activities - KNOWING that there was a cost in "safety". Now, it seems, we are attempting to do away with the protections provided to us by the founders (who actually LIVED under a system with very limited freedoms.) If at some point we wake up and realize "this time they've gone to far", it will be too late. Remember what it cost to stop the abuse 200+ years ago.

Saying (in effect) "well, I don't do anything illegal, so why should I care?" is a very slippery slope. One thing I will almost assure you (not you, specifically, ERD50 - just in general), most of us have broken laws that we are not even aware of. Most of us have broken laws we were aware of, but chose to ignore. 99% of the time, even the police don't care. 99% of the time, no one would go to trial with such a trivial offence. BUT, if someone chose to, we would be liable for our "crimes". While we feel "good" about our morality, citizenship, etc., if a gummint wished to coerce us in some fashion, they could find a broken law in our past (or, as is happening now, write new laws to create more "crimes" for us to commit - think EPA regs - fill in a wet spot in your back yard and you may have committed a felony. Forget and take nail clippers through TSA screening, they probably will just take them away from you. But make no mistake you HAVE committed a crime. You COULD be prosecuted. etc., etc.).

I'm not talking about some vast conspiracy here. I'm saying only that gummint is just like a tiger. We put them in cages, not because they are intrinsically evil, but because we know their nature. A tiger will tear you apart absent control. If you wanted to be "safe" from outsiders, you could build your house with a big fence and let the tiger loose in the yard. No one will come in to molest you. Unfortunately, you can no longer leave your house or the tiger will eat you.

Gummints seek more authority, power, control, etc., not because they are "evil", but because it makes their job easier and more effective. At some point we are all "safe" from bad people, but not safe from the gummint (tiger) who reverts to its nature.

Not intended as a rant, but it's starting to sound like one, so I'll stop since YMMV.

+1

__________________
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.

I appreciate your point of view and actually agree with you that good things have been accomplished by more stringent vigilance. It's also true that if police/gummints had free access to our houses, cars, phones, computers, bedrooms, etc. etc. (no warrants) they would catch even MORE bad folks. 200+ years ago, the founders made a choice. They were aware of the advantages of free access to citizens private affairs. They were also painfully aware of what happened when this access was abused (overused, used as a punishment, used for intimidation, etc, etc. etc.) The founders attempted to put limitations on such activities - KNOWING that there was a cost in "safety". Now, it seems, we are attempting to do away with the protections provided to us by the founders (who actually LIVED under a system with very limited freedoms.) If at some point we wake up and realize "this time they've gone to far", it will be too late. Remember what it cost to stop the abuse 200+ years ago.

Saying (in effect) "well, I don't do anything illegal, so why should I care?" is a very slippery slope. One thing I will almost assure you (not you, specifically, ERD50 - just in general), most of us have broken laws that we are not even aware of. Most of us have broken laws we were aware of, but chose to ignore. 99% of the time, even the police don't care. 99% of the time, no one would go to trial with such a trivial offence. BUT, if someone chose to, we would be liable for our "crimes". While we feel "good" about our morality, citizenship, etc., if a gummint wished to coerce us in some fashion, they could find a broken law in our past (or, as is happening now, write new laws to create more "crimes" for us to commit - think EPA regs - fill in a wet spot in your back yard and you may have committed a felony. Forget and take nail clippers through TSA screening, they probably will just take them away from you. But make no mistake you HAVE committed a crime. You COULD be prosecuted. etc., etc.).

I'm not talking about some vast conspiracy here. I'm saying only that gummint is just like a tiger. We put them in cages, not because they are intrinsically evil, but because we know their nature. A tiger will tear you apart absent control. If you wanted to be "safe" from outsiders, you could build your house with a big fence and let the tiger loose in the yard. No one will come in to molest you. Unfortunately, you can no longer leave your house or the tiger will eat you.

Gummints seek more authority, power, control, etc., not because they are "evil", but because it makes their job easier and more effective. At some point we are all "safe" from bad people, but not safe from the gummint (tiger) who reverts to its nature.

Not intended as a rant, but it's starting to sound like one, so I'll stop since YMMV.

Not intended as a rant, but it's starting to sound like one, so I'll stop since YMMV.

I don't see it as a rant, I thought is was an interesting and valid POV.

Sure, we don't want abusive intrusions into our private lives, but so far, I haven't seen these technology things as abusive in any way. Some of these regulations are crossing a line I think, but I see that as a different beast.

I'm currently halfway through "The Dawn of Innovation", a history of technology developments in the early US. Steam power, textiles, water power, military weapons, railroads, etc. It's interesting just how improper govt influence and corruption there was, including acts by our Founders. I worry about the 'slippery slope' also, but I'm not sure we see evidence of it the technology/privacy area. Over-Regulation, yes (and unfortunately, under-regulation in some important areas).

Yes, we must be vigil, and correct any wrong-doings, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Gummints seek more authority, power, control, etc., not because they are "evil", but because it makes their job easier and more effective.

We've historically (and correctly, I think) protected ourselves from government's power largely by limiting the information that the government is allowed to collect and to keep. I've thought it would be interesting to do a study/SF story, etc on the impact of changing this line to remove restrictions on collection and instead halt government overintrusion by:
1) Significantly raising the bar on what is illegal
2) Instituting severe penalties on government personnel who mishandle the information (blackmail, unauthorized disclosures, harassment of citizens, etc).

We'd catch a lot more real bad guys and, in theory, our lives wouldn't change much. We'd be safer. But I don't think it would be worth it, and I doubt it could be made to work: People in power would mis-use the information (and how would a citizen prove who had done it?) and just the idea of folks knowing our secrets would diminish our lives.

I appreciate your point of view and actually agree with you that good things have been accomplished by more stringent vigilance. It's also true that if police/gummints had free access to our houses, cars, phones, computers, bedrooms, etc. etc. (no warrants) they would catch even MORE bad folks. 200+ years ago, the founders made a choice. They were aware of the advantages of free access to citizens private affairs. They were also painfully aware of what happened when this access was abused (overused, used as a punishment, used for intimidation, etc, etc. etc.) The founders attempted to put limitations on such activities - KNOWING that there was a cost in "safety". Now, it seems, we are attempting to do away with the protections provided to us by the founders (who actually LIVED under a system with very limited freedoms.) If at some point we wake up and realize "this time they've gone to far", it will be too late. Remember what it cost to stop the abuse 200+ years ago.

Saying (in effect) "well, I don't do anything illegal, so why should I care?" is a very slippery slope. One thing I will almost assure you (not you, specifically, ERD50 - just in general), most of us have broken laws that we are not even aware of. Most of us have broken laws we were aware of, but chose to ignore. 99% of the time, even the police don't care. 99% of the time, no one would go to trial with such a trivial offence. BUT, if someone chose to, we would be liable for our "crimes". While we feel "good" about our morality, citizenship, etc., if a gummint wished to coerce us in some fashion, they could find a broken law in our past (or, as is happening now, write new laws to create more "crimes" for us to commit - think EPA regs - fill in a wet spot in your back yard and you may have committed a felony. Forget and take nail clippers through TSA screening, they probably will just take them away from you. But make no mistake you HAVE committed a crime. You COULD be prosecuted. etc., etc.).

I'm not talking about some vast conspiracy here. I'm saying only that gummint is just like a tiger. We put them in cages, not because they are intrinsically evil, but because we know their nature. A tiger will tear you apart absent control. If you wanted to be "safe" from outsiders, you could build your house with a big fence and let the tiger loose in the yard. No one will come in to molest you. Unfortunately, you can no longer leave your house or the tiger will eat you.

Gummints seek more authority, power, control, etc., not because they are "evil", but because it makes their job easier and more effective. At some point we are all "safe" from bad people, but not safe from the gummint (tiger) who reverts to its nature.

Not intended as a rant, but it's starting to sound like one, so I'll stop since YMMV.

+3

__________________
Deserat aka Bridget
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” - George Orwell/Winston Churchill

Government controlled wifi. Hmm, they can fully control it if everyone has the ability to get off the private access grid. At any point they could decide to implement content restrictions or blocking or just shut it down if there was any sort of civil unrest. I think it is just a way for the USA to make sure massive gatherings via twitter or facebook don't happen like in Egypt. I wonder if this is just a way to control our access.

Quote "Just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean the Government isn't out to get me" LOL

__________________
Give me a surfboard and a hammock, some fresh fruit and veg, a fish or two and I am happy for life. I don't need much of a roof over my head to be happy.

I appreciate your point of view and actually agree with you that good things have been accomplished by more stringent vigilance. It's also true that if police/gummints had free access to our houses, cars, phones, computers, bedrooms, etc. etc. (no warrants) they would catch even MORE bad folks. 200+ years ago, the founders made a choice. They were aware of the advantages of free access to citizens private affairs. They were also painfully aware of what happened when this access was abused (overused, used as a punishment, used for intimidation, etc, etc. etc.) The founders attempted to put limitations on such activities - KNOWING that there was a cost in "safety". Now, it seems, we are attempting to do away with the protections provided to us by the founders (who actually LIVED under a system with very limited freedoms.) If at some point we wake up and realize "this time they've gone to far", it will be too late. Remember what it cost to stop the abuse 200+ years ago.

Saying (in effect) "well, I don't do anything illegal, so why should I care?" is a very slippery slope. One thing I will almost assure you (not you, specifically, ERD50 - just in general), most of us have broken laws that we are not even aware of. Most of us have broken laws we were aware of, but chose to ignore. 99% of the time, even the police don't care. 99% of the time, no one would go to trial with such a trivial offence. BUT, if someone chose to, we would be liable for our "crimes". While we feel "good" about our morality, citizenship, etc., if a gummint wished to coerce us in some fashion, they could find a broken law in our past (or, as is happening now, write new laws to create more "crimes" for us to commit - think EPA regs - fill in a wet spot in your back yard and you may have committed a felony. Forget and take nail clippers through TSA screening, they probably will just take them away from you. But make no mistake you HAVE committed a crime. You COULD be prosecuted. etc., etc.).

I'm not talking about some vast conspiracy here. I'm saying only that gummint is just like a tiger. We put them in cages, not because they are intrinsically evil, but because we know their nature. A tiger will tear you apart absent control. If you wanted to be "safe" from outsiders, you could build your house with a big fence and let the tiger loose in the yard. No one will come in to molest you. Unfortunately, you can no longer leave your house or the tiger will eat you.

Gummints seek more authority, power, control, etc., not because they are "evil", but because it makes their job easier and more effective. At some point we are all "safe" from bad people, but not safe from the gummint (tiger) who reverts to its nature.

Not intended as a rant, but it's starting to sound like one, so I'll stop since YMMV.

YES!... +4

For those who have Netflix... "House of Cards 2013"... the clear and present danger exemplified.

"There are already clear signs in the United States and abroad that if enough of this public spectrum resource is made freely available for unlicensed use, the private sector will step up and make wireless connectivity ubiquitous and affordable, at least in urban and suburban areas. Freeing up more unlicensed spectrum holds out the promise of solving the so-called “spectrum crisis” created by exploding consumer demand for video and other high-bandwidth apps on mobile devices, while simultaneously bringing competition and innovation to a cellular market that has been rapidly trending toward a two-carrier duopoly dominated by AT&T and Verizon Wireless."

Latest Threads

Social Knowledge Community

About Us

This community was started in 2002 as an alternative to a then fee only Motley Fool. The focus of the discussions is on topics related to early retirement and financial independence. The community is moderated to ensure a pleasant experience for our members.